Generel Statement by International Coalition For Development Action (ICDA)
Ms. Meredyth Ailloud
Brussels, 17 May 2001
DESPITE international consensus for the need for urgent action stated and reiterated by the international community,
DESPITE two programmes of action and midterm reviews spanning two decades,
And DESPITE the implementation of economic reform at national level by LDC member Countries, the socio economic situation of this group of countries has deteriorated, and populations living in these countries are faced with extreme poverty: 1.5 billion living on less than a Euro a day, 2 billion on less than 2. Indeed; as the delegates speaking at the opening session of the Third LDC Conference have reminded us, the number of LDC countries has doubled despite all efforts to find, solutions.
We, the NGO community, decision-makers, national governrnents, international agencies and institutions alike have, for the most part, failed. We must take note.
A considerable number of NGOs have been present and active in proposing alternative solutions to alleviate poverty involving finding new ways of promoting sustainable development and reducing disparities among nations and within.
They are here this week. We share their vision and support their proposals.
This proposal is meant to reinforce NGO arid government efforts, North arid
South, to take forward a serious and honest development agenda át the outcome
of this meeting.
Political commitment to technical and financial resources
In, 1980, and again in 1990, the international community committed to urgent and effective action to arrest the deterioration in the socio-economic situation in LDCs and revitalise growth and development. This promise was ambitious, but it was not binding. The- Secretary General of UNCTAD, Mr Ricupero, has been recorded as stating that one of the major reasons why the two previous programmes of action had only limited success was because they were not accompanied by specific resource commitments.
OUR FIRST DEMAND is that the agreements and the measures to be adopted at the Third Conference be specific concerning technical and financial resources and that they be binding. Without bound measures, scepticism about the serious intentions of achieving results will prevail. The WTO has figured out binding when it comes to tariff reduction commitments. In the same way, binding commitment mechanisms should be sought for this forum.
In 1990, the International Community, through adoption of the Programme of Action for LDCs, pledged to assign and substantially increase resources to LDCs. This commitment included targets of 0.15% and 0.20% of donor country GNP as earmarked for ODA. Global ODA has never reached the level of the Paris Commitments. Worse, the recent decision by the OECD countries to untie aid, estimated as being 20-25% more costly than assistance based on competition, is filled with exceptions. For example, food aid and aid for technical cooperation are- not to be untied. The US refused to untie food aid at the insistence of its powerful farm lobby and congress. Technical cooperation was excluded at the demand of Denmark and Japan claiming its consultancy sector too weak to face world competition.
OUR SECOND DEMAND is that governments seriously untie aid, reconfirm these targets and set time frames. This too must be binding.
External debt
The external debt and debt servicing burden has devastating effects on LDCs. Yet loans have been procured by governments without any public consultation, without transparency, without accountability. Worse, the loans, which are currently being reimbursed, have nothing on the ground to show for the awful debt it has incurred. There has been no relief, just debt.
For these reasons, OUR THIRD DEMAND is cancellation of multilateral and bilateral debt. This must be an explicit measure in the Action Programme's text. Business can go bankrupt, so can countries with far more devastating implications.
Education, health and social
services
LDC governments and Civil Society have all described the dire state and degradation of social services during the past two decades. In order to meet other commitments at the international level, governments have abandoned important and essential programmes. What has happened to the commitment to provide universal access to basic social services? We strongly believe that funding must be allocated with specific reference to social programmes.
OUR FOURTH DEMAND is to reaffirm support for the 20/20 initiative by which 20% of national budgets respectively by allocated to basic social needs. This too must be binding.
Industry and foreign direct
investment
Industry makes no secrets about its perspectives on global issues: the only investment is a good investment. It is not industries' role to be charitable, nor apparently has it adopted a high degree of responsibility in international development. Appropriate and clean technology transfer and access to know how are fundamental to development. These are all within the scope of the private sector. An Affirmative Action must be adopted. If not, FDI will not go there.
OUR FIFTH DEMAND is that a concept be developed within the LDC Conference and committees that would oblige Multinational companies to invest in LDCs. The form of this constraint could be, for example, a 'quota system' share of total investment targeted in LDCs. Such a measure would only be positive if the foreign direct investment were to be coherent with currently developed Codes of Good Practice. We are fully aware of the complexities involved. And the whole control mechanism would have to be worked out.
Market access
Ten years ago, at LDC II, the Industrialised Countries pledged to improve market access for LDCs. Since, the EU and the US trade policies have continued to be riddled with restrictions. Quotas, tariffs and tariff peaks, government payments to agriculture have all been carefully crafted to enhance Northern national interests on the world market. According to the World Bank, rich countries' trade restrictions have cost LDCs 2.75 Billion a year. This cost has impacted all sectors of LDC economies from textiles to health.
OUR SEVENTH DEMAND is for a commitment to creating real and tangible market opportunities for LDC products. Developing countries represent 0.4% of total trade today. LDCs urgently need full market access and preferential schemes for their key sectors of production. As controversial as it may be, zero tariffs for imports from LDCs are a small concession.
Such measures could be accompanied by South-South regional. strategies of production and trade. This would be important to avoid creating competition among poor nations. Moreover, it would serve to promote inter-regional cooperation and exchange.
Civil Society Participation in
the UN Negotiations Process
There are only a few days left before the final session. The accredited NGOs, who have travelled long distances and put in their time and energy to contribute to the quality of the discussions, have discovered on arrival that they have no access. We have not been informed as to the reason for this protocol. What then was accreditation about?
OUR FINAL DEMAND is to be authorised, as early as tomorrow's session, to sit in the sessions. OUR DEMAND is that delegations, and NGOs in delegations, take this message to the assembly and in this way, defend our rights. Our demand is that the UNCTAD Secretariat and the Cluster Chairs invite us to participate immediately.
The effectiveness and legitimacy and of the whole LDC Conference process has not been proved. Given this, we have come to be reticent over the use of a LDC socio-economic country category in addressing global problems faced by these countries. Clearly the policy measures and international instruments that could be developed and implemented to serve the interests of the worlds poorest nations would also be beneficial for the all developing countries. Moreover, given the track record of missing the targets embodied in the two previous Draft Programmes of Action, a 'new' Programme of Action seems sadly unrealistic.
For this reason, we would welcome an international initiative to establish a international UN permanent body to - consolidate the ongoing work in the numerous meetings - Beijing, Copenhagen, Rio, Qatar and fora - FAO, UNDP, UNCTAD, UNEP, WTO. Something perhaps like the GAT, GATS and TRIPs relationship under WTO which has so efficiently served these trade agreements. A permanent institution could be seen as a focal point for monitoring coherency among multilateral policies and agreements. It could also be a "Litmus Test" for coherency between policies and agreements and the internationally recognised priority objective of sustainable development.
We believe that poverty is inherently political and that if the current trade, economic and financial policies were to be dealt with as tools to promote development and reformed to this end, the international community would be able to create a sustainable, just and promising present and future for all. Finally, as the negotiations progress, we are becoming increasingly concerned that these issues will be finalised on Saturday night, midnight, and take the form of an expeditiously prepared package deal to take or to leave. For this reason, it is absolutely urgent that real progress be achieved. Delegations here this week must be aware of the stakes and work much harder. Thank you.
Meredyth
Bowler-Ailloud - Strategic Development Initiative
For ICDA, International Coalition for Development Action
Email contact either through ICDA
or at: mailloud@altavista.fr
*******